QUOTE (Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera @ May 19 2014, 02:08 PM)
... states our learned colleague Simon Kirby
Why the need to mock me? I'm perfectly civil to you, in public and private, so attack my argument however you like, but don't patronise me.
QUOTE (Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera @ May 19 2014, 02:08 PM)
The reality is that the public seem to rather like the Mayor, otherwise why would hundreds of organisations ask for their attendance each year?
Does the Mayor need to be a function of the Town Council though is a separate matter?
Personally I would very much favour a process where the public elect their the Mayor to undertake civic duties and then there would be no opportunity for the Mayor to politically influence the running of local government and therefore limit the need for those interested in a political agenda to seek such office.
How this would work, at this moment I have no idea, but if more Forum members became Councillors then potentially we could have a revolution in the council chamber over this very matter.
The issue isn't whether or not people like the mayor, the issue is whether it is proportionate, cost-effective, and proper for the town council to provide the mayor at a cost to the public.
Cost first: The council spends a total of £112k under the Civic Duties head; £18k on running costs, £38k on staffing, and £54k of back-office overheads (including another £33k of staffing costs).
That £18k of running costs breaks down as £3,000 Honorarium, £3,000 Mayor's Allowances, £2,050 for the Mayor Making ceremony, £500 for regalia and uniforms, £500 for the civic robe replacement fund, £1,000 for civic hospitality, £700 for the Remembrance Day, £2,500 for the Freedom Parade (whatever that is), £3,000 for Twin Town entertaining, £500 for civic events, and £400 for civic awards, and a £575 retainer for Watership Brass.
So it appears to me that those benefiting most from the Civic Duties are the council and its councillors, dressing up and generally lording it over the rest of us. It hardly improves the council's engagement when the councillors are actively encouraged to think they are socially superior.
I don't dispute that there are hundreds of events that the Mayor gets to go to each year - and it really is an impressively full schedule, but is there a public benefit proportionate to the cost? - because the cost of running the Mayor and all that pomp is outrageously high.
The Mayor's attendances are largely middle-class social hob-nobbing - plenty of military and religious events of one sort or another, and some inter-town civic schmoozing, but the benefit is almost entirely to the schmoozing elite, like the Newbury Society Cheese and Wine Party, the Newbury Twin Town Association AGM, a panel unveilling at the Council's own Clock Tower, or a concert at Douai Abbey.
Hardly seemed appropriate to me for the Mayor to lend the approval and civic dignity of the Town Council to the opening of the new William Hill betting shop in the Market Place.
I agree that a town can benefit from some civic dignity, but that's what the Newbury Society is for, and if that's your hobby then great, schmooze away, but it's hardly a proper function of local government, not when that same pantomime character chairs the full council - and we're all expected to stand as they come in like the entrance of the Queen of Sheba!
Separate the flummery from the serious business of local government administration; drop the ceremonial mayor and style yourself as a parish council.